Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

NDPS | Non-Compliance with Section 52A(2) Vitiates Trial: High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Uttarakhand High Court emphasizes mandatory procedures in NDPS Act, finds prima facie lapses in sampling and certification of contraband.”

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Khurshid, convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of contraband. The bench, comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit, emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural mandates, particularly Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, during the sampling and certification of seized contraband. This decision highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in ensuring procedural compliance in narcotics cases.

Mohammad Khurshid was convicted on August 30, 2022, for possession of 610 grams of smack under Section 8© read with Section 21© of the NDPS Act. The conviction followed a police operation on September 4, 2019, wherein Khurshid was apprehended and the contraband was seized. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing procedural lapses, specifically the non-compliance with Section 52A(2) concerning the mandatory presence of a Magistrate during the sampling of the contraband.

The court’s primary concern revolved around the adherence to Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the sampling and certification of seized narcotics be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate. The court noted:

Non-Compliance with Section 52A(2): The court found prima facie evidence suggesting that the procedural requirements under Section 52A(2) were not met. Justice Pankaj Purohit stated, “The provisions which are mandatory keeping in view the draconian nature of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the prosecution.”

Judicial Precedents: The bench referenced significant Supreme Court rulings, including Yusuf @ Asif vs. State (AIR 2023 SC 5041) and Union of India vs. MohanLal& another ((2016) 3 SCC 379), which underscore the criticality of strict compliance with Section 52A(2). The court observed, “If a sample of the seized contraband was not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and the inventory of the seized contraband not duly certified by the Magistrate, the whole trial stands vitiated.”

The court meticulously reviewed the legislative intent and judicial interpretations surrounding Section 52A(2). It reiterated that non-compliance with this section significantly undermines the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Justice Purohit emphasized, “The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification.”

Justice Purohit remarked, “We are prima facie satisfied that provisions of Section 52A(2) of the Act were not complied with in the present matter.”

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mohammad Khurshid underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring procedural fidelity in narcotics cases. By highlighting the crucial role of compliance with Section 52A(2), this judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of following statutory protocols meticulously. The case will proceed to final hearing in due course, but the bail order sets a significant precedent on the procedural adherence required under the NDPS Act.

Case Title: Mohammad Khurshid vs. State of Uttarakhand

 

Date of Decision: June 27, 2024

Similar News